runescapeclassicfandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:Blackmarks
When users make useless edits and pages they get a Block Point. With 3 Block Points they will be blocked. If you see someone that could recieve a Block Point, post here. --Zorak plorak 18:04, March 7, 2010 (UTC) P.S. Reactions/Replies below. Also if you want to change the rule. If there's a real block this template will be used: If someone recieves a blockpoint this template will be used: Fill in at Parameter the amount of Block Points. Users with a Block Point Blocked (3) *(3)RSCEmulation (For adverting a RSC PRIVATE SERVER) *(3)86.11.107.2 Temp. Blocked *(?)74.12.51.225 (31 march 2011 - 3 april 2011) 2 1 *(1)58.170.73.148 *(1)67.71.38.90 *(1)67.183.101.212 *(1)72.8.71.224 *(1)75.50.53.41 *(1)75.81.33.248 *(1)84.90.208.225 *(1)86.159.4.219 *(1)203.219.239.114 *(1)210.195.82.119 Replies I do agree that there should be some kind of a warning system, but I believe just placing "1 Blackmark" on a possible vandal's talk page is leaving them hanging. Is there a policy about this warning system? In which there shall be an explanation of them. Though, Jagex uses the blackmark system. We should have another term. Maybe we could have a warning template, stating what they have done, on which page, linking them to the policy page, and the consequences should they commit offences again. 18:09, March 7, 2010 (UTC) I also think that on the sidebar, Under "Special pages", there should be "report a vandal" and link here. Though I question whether or not there should be a replies section on the reporting page. Maybe moving this to a namespace with a talk page would work. So whenever the talk page gets filled to a reasonable length, it shall be archived to reduce lag for those with slower computers. 18:21, March 7, 2010 (UTC) Good idea, however I had to start it here, becuz it was a suggestion. --Zorak plorak 18:24, March 7, 2010 (UTC) Hey Zorak Plorak, great idea for the template, but the grammar is a bit off. It should read "We try to make a huge Wikia, with a lot of information. We would like to say that you haven't made us very happy with your edit. That's why you have recieved your Block Point. If it is your '''first one, please don't do this again. When you recieve 3 Block Points you will be blocked, '''and unable to edit. If you want more information, you may look at this page." I don't mean for this to be mean, just helpful. Sorry in advance if it is taken the wrong way. Nex Undique 19:05, March 7, 2010 (UTC) I'm dutch, so yes, I know my english is a bit... --Zorak plorak 19:21, March 7, 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. It was great english, you speak foreign languages much better than me. Nex Undique 19:56, March 7, 2010 (UTC) =D, doesn't mind --Zorak plorak 07:40, March 9, 2010 (UTC) Comment - I'm all fine with a warning "point" system, but have a few issues I would like to bring up. :What if a user makes massive vandalism edits? Should we count those as the same amount as ones that just add a nonsense word or two to an article? :Will these marks ever expire, or will they be like Wikipedia, every month is a new warning system? Those are two questions I would like to have answered. The way I think it should be is for the first one, admins should decide what a reasonable amount of points is. We wouldn't want a murderer to get the same punishment as a jaywalker. For the second one, they should revert every month. Some users have a dynamic IP, which changes every so often. An IP may find a notice on their talk page for edits another person has done. Last is that, in the beginning of this, the first two warnings given. Those two users had their talk page protected, indefinitely, forever. I don't view this as a great way to work. Talk pages are used for talking with other users. By protecting the talk page from editing, you are taking away a use of talking with other editors. I'm also writing a rough draft for a policy I may be proposing in my sandbox. Feel free to have a look over it, I will be adding a new forum for a community decision on this policy. 23:45, March 9, 2010 (UTC) Ty for this reply, I think you're right, we should expire them. Also we should give blackmarks par vandalism, like: Nonsense word: 1 blackmark, creating massive amount off nonsense: 3... Have to go to next lesson =P-- 07:22, April 7, 2010 (UTC) :So, should we take some users off now? It's been quite a while. If it expires monthly, there's only 2 IPs left. -- 20:44, April 30, 2010 (UTC) Ok, but I think I protect the Main Page again. It's too important. :I guess that a semi-protection is a good idea. 13:24, May 1, 2010 (UTC) I think we should hold theyre blackmarks. Btw, doesn't 24.169.237.99 have to recive one for making a page called Grass (Nothing in rsc) with nothing on page? :I think it was in good faith, but yeah, if it happens repeatedly then he should probably get one. 14:38, June 5, 2010 (UTC)